I have been blown away with the innovative 3D printer approach involving a three motor, “parallel robot”, stationary build platform design. Similar to those typically utilized in multi-axis CNC machines, and automated assembly lines; which is now being applied to the impressive SeeMeCNC.com 's “Rostock MAX” 3D printer.
Would absolutely, love to hear some feedback as to how folks feel about embracing this new design paradigm for 3D printing, and any and all of the advantages or disadvantages they feel it offers? Just seems rather revolutionary to me… (Perhaps I’m really naively overlooking some inherent issues?)
<If you’re not familiar with this product and design, dive in below for a good dose of video links showing off not only SeeMeCNC’s demos; as well as some generic RepRap, “Rostock” inspired machines. GREAT STUFF!>
The Rostock design seems to not only be extremely price competitive, (in the $900+/- range for a kit from SeeMeCNC’s requiring approximately 8 hrs to assemble,) it also boast some leading speed, accuracy and build dimension benefits. (The lack of table/build surface movement, provides equal build speed for all three axis. As well as apparently flawless circular design results and much taller model designs.)
Demo Video Link: http://youtu.be/3Lg3IokWYeQ
(Not sure why their main demo video, is that of a timelaps? There are many others on YouTube, by end users which demonstrated the impressive “normal” speed of the printer.) Perhaps a much better, quick explanation of the Rostock design, from a RepRap user: http://youtu.be/T05N0KGO-48
The SeeMeCNC kit currently lacks a dual (or triple) color extruding option. However, the control board being included, certainly supports this as a later upgrade; and this opportunity is boasted on their ordering website. Again, I just enjoy seeing this product in action, and can’t help but assume this printing platform and its’ unique design features might well serve as a slam dunk of sorts, given the current market offerings in this price range? But I am simply a perspective customer at this point.
Here are some additional, impressive RepRap versions of Rostock derivatives, demonstrated within these 2 video links: http://youtu.be/Zu5JFb8FwLY And another, printing a Klein Bottle http://youtu.be/nkAwOxA0lq8
Apparently the obvious design distinction which avoids any movement of the actual build surface, (while depending solely on the extruder arms to provide all the X, Y & Z work;) not only allows for quicker build times, but also helps in preventing build flaws. Since potentially invasive movements of a developing model and any resulting model and material momentum, etc. is avoided during the entire build. (Even unintended “curling” flaws during printing are sometimes attributed to uneven cooling, due to the subsequent airflow during model movement; especially in the case of sharp corners and/or thin design features. Another potential downfall, easily prevented by maintaining a stationary build platform.)
I assume this higher stability might in some cases, provide for even taller & perhaps “weaker” designs than those which would be advisable or attempted on more “traditional”, 2 axis print head designs. Or at the very least, the overall success rates of any printed designs would be very appreciated.
Love to have any and all feedback from those with more experience than me. Which would invite just about anyone’s opinion.
(Incidentally, They are also experimentation with an inverted design which keeps the extruder completely fixed, and the table provides all three axis of movement, in order to create a less complicated approach to utilizing plastic pellets in a granular extruder, rather than the traditional roll of plastic filament. http://youtu.be/j8B1PypVCvU )